The game flows better, it’s faster and the on-field referees hold themselves with more confidence.

The video referee was introduced to stop the "howler", the embarrassing mistake.

Well, how is that working out for us?

I would suggest that the "howlers" are even greater.

Last weekend was a particularly bad round for the video referees.

Tries being called no tries, no tries being awarded and Cooper Cronk escaping the most obvious sin-binning of the year after the on-field referee hesitated, threw the decision up to the man in the video box, who somehow decided, after at least half a dozen looks, that a penalty was sufficient.

In the following 10 minutes Cronk was the most dominant player on the field, setting up a crucial try to put his team in front.

It was a huge decision to leave him out on the field, and the wrong decision to everyone who saw it, except the video referee.

I won’t go so far as to argue a case to totally abandon the video technology, because that won’t happen; writing an article arguing that is a total waste of time.

What I am arguing is that the current system is severely hurting the game and in need of a rethink.

It’s not just the inconsistency of the decisions but the constant halting of the contest for prolonged periods.

It’s boring and it ruins the rhythm and flow of the game.

It’s slowing the game to a crawl, where we need to be doing everything possible to speed it up.

A fast-flowing game loosens a defence and brings the attacking stars to the fore.

Each week we are seeing too many games where little football is being played.

Wrestling has played its part in this but so, too, the stop-start nature of the football.

It’s time to reduce the over reliance on the video and only refer to the video referee on a captain or coach’s challenge.

It’s been trialled in the under-20s competition.

The system I like is where each team gets only two challenges throughout the 80 minutes, with an additional challenge in the event of extra time.

The challenge can be used for anything, but a team only has two.

The on-field referee has not got the power to go to the video; instead he will be aided by the re-introduction of the in-goal referees and must make a definitive decision on the spot.

How the challenges are made and how long after the incident does a team get to make the challenge can be worked out later on.

The key thing is it would dramatically reduce the use of the video and the amount of stoppages.

It puts the onus back on the coach or captain to make meaningful challenges, as opposed to our current situation where a referee will go to the video even if there is the slightest chance a try could have been scored.

Granted, on a coach’s challenge we are still relying on the video ref to get the decision right, something they are struggling with at the moment, and that needs to be addressed.

But most importantly it’s a step in the right direction in getting the speed and flow back into rugby league.

The other alarming issue which needs urgent attention is the continuation of the sickening third man in at the legs tackle, which is still causing injuries week-in, week-out.

I don’t blame the refs for this one because they are having a devil of a time trying to rule on it. I blame the coaches who continue to coach it and the players who continue to do it.

I cannot believe a footballer would want to inflict this tackle upon a fellow professional.

Ankle and knee injuries are rife in the game and this tackle is a major reason why.

The players often band together under the umbrella of the Players' Association, arguing for player welfare.

Hypocrites!

If they are truly serious about the welfare of their fellow professionals, then they should stop using a tactic which is putting careers at risk.